Let the evidence speak for itself vs Media Hype: Who wins?

[Excon]

Or M was trying to keep.Z.from.drawing his gun the whole time.

Unlikely, as there is no evidence that supports such an assertion.

 

[ric27]

What part of I don't give a **** about standards of evidence do you refuse to understand.

The.determinations of a.court of law.and what actually transpired.are.often different things for various reasons.

The.law.will probably free him.

That kid is probably dead because Z is a foolish man.

You're scary and unruly when you get emotional

 

[What if...?]

Unlikely, as there is no evidence that supports such an assertion.

Except apparently totally unprecedented behavior on Ms part.

There is no.evidence that M is prone to that sort of behavior.

 

[ric27]

Except apparently totally unprecedented behavior on Ms part.

There is no.evidence that M is prone to that sort of behavior.

You keep getting stuck on this "totally unprecedented behavior on Ms part"

Dude, it means squat/nada

What matters is...M committed the act. M committed an act of unlawful force against Z. M attacked Z without adequate provocation.

Again... Do you know what, the term *provocation* means in the context of self defense law?

 

[What if...?]

You keep getting stuck on this "totally unprecedented behavior on Ms part"

Dude, it means squat/nada

What matters is...M committed the act. M committed an act of unlawful force against Z. M attacked Z without adequate provocation.

Again... Do you know what, the term *provocation* means in the context of self defense law?

Do you understand what I mean when I say I don't give a **** about self defense law?

Evidently not.

 

[ric27]

Do you understand what I mean when I say I don't give a **** about self defense law?

Evidently not.

Wow....You lost the argument and now, you resort to unbecoming/antisocial behavior

You should be shameful and should seek help

Oh, dear!!!....Sharon gave you a like

Truly a sad day on, the sub forums today

 

[What if...?]

Wow....You lost the argument and now, you resort to unbecoming/antisocial behavior

You should be shameful and should seek help

Oh, dear!!!....Sharon gave you a like

Truly a sad day on, the sub forums today

How can I lose an argument we are not having.

I'm interested in figuring out what actually happened, you're interested in what the law.can prove.

Entirely different perspectives.

 

[ric27]

How can I lose an argument we are not having.

I'm interested in figuring out what actually happened, you're interested in what the law.can prove.

Entirely different perspectives.

lol...by showing disdain towards the law?

Your work within a legal and ethical framework not from the outside

It's the reason why your arguments *often without legal support or reason* are simply piss poor

 

[buck]

lol...by showing disdain towards the law?

Your work within a legal and ethical framework not from the outside

It's the reason why your arguments *often without legal support or reason* are simply piss poor

I believe he has said in the past that he believes that what Zimmerman did was irresponsible / immoral but not ilegal (WhatIf - correct me if I am wrong).

So, if you look at it from that perspective, it may change your argument a little or at least help you udnerstand where he is coming from.

 

[buck]

George wasn't on his way to Target and he wasn't "mentoring" that Sunday afternoon..

George is lying just as he has lied his way out of every other jam he's been in.

More from the crazy people you claim are more educated then those at the Conservative Tree house:

They have now moved on to allegations that Zimm showed up with premade injuries to his nose/head in order to faciliate a SD claim... I guess this must mean that they believe he went out every day with these premade injuries.. As there is no way he could have known when it was going to occur.

There was also more then one claim that I have read over there, that Zimmerman didn't really bleed. He just smeared blood all over himself. Some have claimed that he got the blood from Trayvon.. Others didn't specify where he got the blood.

Good job Sharon... You should fit right in over there. Sounds like your type of people.

 

[What if...?]

lol...by showing disdain towards the law?

Your work within a legal and ethical framework not from the outside

It's the reason why your arguments *often without legal support or reason* are simply piss poor

And the law and justice are the same thing.

Nobody has been exonerated from death row on more accurate evidence.

Sometimes the law.sets the guilty free.

Which is ultimately better than locking up the innocent.

But your premise that the law is supreme over actual reality is nonsense.

 

[ric27]

I believe he has said in the past that he believes that what Zimmerman did was irresponsible / immoral but not ilegal (WhatIf - correct me if I am wrong).

So, if you look at it from that perspective, it may change your argument a little or at least help you udnerstand where he is coming from.

I know what his perspective is...the *inappropriate/immoral/irresponsible* path

The issue is....this will be a trial not a church gathering. This *the trial* will be about, the testing of the evidence to determine if the state/prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has nothing to do with....searching for the truth or what really happened that night

What if is wrong in taking that path. It truly serves no purpose

 

[What if...?]

I believe he has said in the past that he believes that what Zimmerman did was irresponsible / immoral but not ilegal (WhatIf - correct me if I am wrong).

So, if you look at it from that perspective, it may change your argument a little or at least help you udnerstand where he is coming from.

Not even immoral.

Just out of his depth.

And not guilty of more than a minimum "reckless negligence" kind of offense.

It just doesn't sit well that so many defend Zs obviously foolish behavior that night. Outright deny that M may have been responding in fear for HIS life BECAUSE of Zs actions. Refuse to even consider the idea that Z may be lying or simply wrong about what happened.

What we have is time unaccounted for in the key moments, no remotely similar prior behavior on Ms part, and the whole bail flim flam (which means Z will flim flam).

Not legal proof, but more than enough to question Zs accuracy/veracity.

 

[Thoreau72]

Wow....You lost the argument and now, you resort to unbecoming/antisocial behavior

You should be shameful and should seek help

Oh, dear!!!....Sharon gave you a like

Truly a sad day on, the sub forums today

If the jury does not see it the way you do, I hope you will be OK. :roll:

 

[sharon]

I know what his perspective is...the *inappropriate/immoral/irresponsible* path

The issue is....this will be a trial not a church gathering. This *the trial* will be about, the testing of the evidence to determine if the state/prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has nothing to do with....searching for the truth or what really happened that night

What if is wrong in taking that path. It truly serves no purpose

The adversarial process is probably the best way of ascertaining the truth... that really is the point.

In our judicial system the accused actually has more rights than the victim..

Have you ever lived in a country where the rights of the victim were paramount? I have. The differences are pretty astonishing.

 

[ric27]

Not even immoral.

Just out of his depth.

And not guilty of more than a minimum "reckless negligence" kind of offense.

It just doesn't sit well that so many defend Zs obviously foolish behavior that night. Outright deny that M may have been responding in fear for HIS life BECAUSE of Zs actions. Refuse to even consider the idea that Z may be lying or simply wrong about what happened.

What we have is time unaccounted for in the key moments, no remotely similar prior behavior on Ms part, and the whole bail flim flam (which means Z will flim flam).

Not legal proof, but more than enough to question Zs accuracy/veracity.

Again, thinking emotionally

You say M was fearful?

A coupla points

1 M didn't call 911 = not fearful

2 M had plenty of time to get back to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and be safe *if* M was fearful* from the time when Z made his NEN call to when the altercation began.

3 M had to reasonably believe *he was fearful* and was about to be attacked by Z. Sorry, but there's no evidence to support that *angle*

U have nothing

 

[Thoreau72]

I know what his perspective is...the *inappropriate/immoral/irresponsible* path

The issue is....this will be a trial not a church gathering. This *the trial* will be about, the testing of the evidence to determine if the state/prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has nothing to do with....searching for the truth or what really happened that night

What if is wrong in taking that path. It truly serves no purpose

Surely you have not a clue about the proper role of the jury in our legal system. Try | Fully Informed Jury Association

The jury is the conscience of the community. It can judge both the facts and the law in any given case, and has the power to acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its role is to determine who was right and who was wrong in a case like this.

It will be interesting to see how the jury sees this. Certainly juries can be wrong, ESPECIALLY when they are tampered with by the guys in the black robes.

 

[ric27]

Surely you have not a clue about the proper role of the jury in our legal system. Try | Fully Informed Jury Association

The jury is the conscience of the community. It can judge both the facts and the law in any given case, and has the power to acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its role is to determine who was right and who was wrong in a case like this.

It will be interesting to see how the jury sees this. Certainly juries can be wrong, ESPECIALLY when they are tampered with by the guys in the black robes.

Justice is supposed to be blind and this State vs Z case *actually all cases* should be decided on its merits. That's the way it should be, but as many all know...in real life that isn't what really happens, at least not a lot of time. I also believe that we have a terrible system of justice that is redeemed only by the fact that it is better than all the others around the globe

On the jury....the jury is the tester of the facts and on the flip side, the judge has to do with the law and determines if the evidence can be admitted and also tells the jury in the instructions what the law is

Jury - the facts....Judge - the law

Now, the jury is supposed to evaluate the facts that have been presented by opposing counsel and apply the law they have been given. When there are issues of credibility, they use their common sense and their own determination as to who they believe.

Knowing or getting to the truth of what really went down that night has squat to do with it

 

[Excon]

Except apparently totally unprecedented behavior on Ms part.

There is no.evidence that M is prone to that sort of behavior.

:doh
And as already pointed out, our prisons are full of people who acted out violently just once in their life.
So what you point out is meaningless, and isn't evidence of anything other than a norm.

 

[What if...?]

:doh
And as already pointed out, our prisons are full of people who acted out violently just once in their life.
So what you point out is meaningless, and isn't evidence of anything other than a norm.

Our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders.

Unless you can come up with actual numbers of people in prison who acted out violently with no prior violent behavior and no apparent reason, that fulfill your claim of "full", you are talking out the side of your neck.

 

[What if...?]

I know what his perspective is...the *inappropriate/immoral/irresponsible* path

The issue is....this will be a trial not a church gathering. This *the trial* will be about, the testing of the evidence to determine if the state/prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It has nothing to do with....searching for the truth or what really happened that night

What if is wrong in taking that path. It truly serves no purpose

So you believe that all the death row folks exonerated by dna evidence should simply be executed anyway because the "law" has spoken? They were convicted by a court of law based on the "evidence" were they not?

 

[What if...?]

Again, thinking emotionally

You say M was fearful?

A coupla points

1 M didn't call 911 = not fearful

2 M had plenty of time to get back to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and be safe *if* M was fearful* from the time when Z made his NEN call to when the altercation began.

3 M had to reasonably believe *he was fearful* and was about to be attacked by Z. Sorry, but there's no evidence to support that *angle*

U have nothing

1. 911 can't help you right now. And i doubt black kids call the cops much.

2. Fear comes in degrees. The apprehension one feels when follkwed by a stranger in a car can escalate quickly upon discovery that said stranger is on foot and RIGHT THERE.

3. When said stranger, upon being confronted, immediately starts fumbling about at their waist, where a gun actually IS, a reasonable person might very well come to the conclusion their life is in danger.

 

[sharon]

1. 911 can't help you right now. And i doubt black kids call the cops much.

2. Fear comes in degrees. The apprehension one feels when follkwed by a stranger in a car can escalate quickly upon discovery that said stranger is on foot and RIGHT THERE.

3. When said stranger, upon being confronted, immediately starts fumbling about at their waist, where a gun actually IS, a reasonable person might very well come to the conclusion their life is in danger.

George's stories keep changing... and don't really explain his movements that evening. In the past he had also patrolled the Colonial Village Apts.. which also has a lighted mail kioske.

 

[ric27]

So you believe that all the death row folks exonerated by dna evidence should simply be executed anyway because the "law" has spoken? They were convicted by a court of law based on the "evidence" were they not?

It's childishly to think that everyone who's convicted of a crime in this country is actually guilty. On the other hand a great deal of folks who aren't convicted are guilty as hell. It's just the way the system works.

On Z....Do you want to throw Z in a hole for x amount of years because....OF

no witness to refute that M physically assaulted Z

no witness to refute that Z had an opportunity to free himself and avoid using deadly force.

no evidence that Z was about to attack M.

no evidence that proves Z was the aggressor

no evidence or witnesses that Z intended to capture/detain/hold M

no evidence that would justify M’s physical attack on Z

And to end this....Truthfully, I would rather see a murderer go free, than for an innocent person to be convicted. A **** load of dudes who got put on death row in *circumstantial* type cases, that were exonerated after the advent of DNA, etc ...that's not right by any means

I would much rather a prosecution team wait and get hard evidence than *circumstantial* crap in this particular type of case or cases

 

[What if...?]

It's childishly to think that everyone who's convicted of a crime in this country is actually guilty. On the other hand a great deal of folks who aren't convicted are guilty as hell. It's just the way the system works.

On Z....Do you want to throw Z in a hole for x amount of years because....OF

no witness to refute that M physically assaulted Z

no witness to refute that Z had an opportunity to free himself and avoid using deadly force.

no evidence that Z was about to attack M.

no evidence that proves Z was the aggressor

no evidence or witnesses that Z intended to capture/detain/hold M

no evidence that would justify M’s physical attack on Z

And to end this....Truthfully, I would rather see a murderer go free, than for an innocent person to be convicted. A **** load of dudes who got put on death row in *circumstantial* type cases, that were exonerated after the advent of DNA, etc ...that's not right by any means

I would much rather a prosecution team wait and get hard evidence than *circumstantial* crap in this particular type of case or cases

I've said before that at the end of the day it is better the guilty go free than the innocent be imprisoned.

I just don't believe it happened the way Z says it did.

M was supposedly smashing Zs head, punching Z a dozen times, covering his mouth with both hands, yet neither man has any defensive injuries. M had one small cut on the inside of his left little finger.

So what exactly was Z DOING while he was being "beaten to death? For like 3 and a half minutes if you believe his version. By the evidence he was a spectator up til he got the gun.

Whic is a primary reason I believe the physical confrontation was over the gun from the gate.

Explains every single questionable aspect of the event perfectly and fits all of the evidence EXCEPT the shooters narrative.

So the law protects him, but I don't believe his story.